We need to amend the second amendment.
59Protect your gun rights.
We need a realistic second amendment.
It could be said that your right to own a firearm is threatened by the poorly written second amendment. It says "you have the right to keep and bear arms" and then it talks about "a well regulated militia." It never says that you have the specific right to own a firearm.
We need to amend the amendment to say : " We have the right to own firearms to protect our homes, families,and businesses ,as well as, for sport and recreational activities."
The Supreme Court would have NO trouble interpreting that amendment.
Note: We must start a grassroots movement to advance this amendment because; I am afraid the NRA won't help on this because it would cut into their revenue stream.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Note to someonewhoknows:
You make some good points and show knowledge of the subject. However, we have to work with the tools that we have. The constitution and the Bill of Rights are it for us.
Unfortunately Philip, the Constitution isn't enough to protect our liberties. Madison did his best when crafting that document, but there was a wing of the Convention that wanted a strong central government and the Constitution reflects that. You see that most clearly in the policies of Alexander Hamilton.
The Constitution is ineffective because of the actions of politicians. The Progressive Era ushered in political thinking that required the Constitution to be dismantled. Of course, this is the United States so you just can't rewrite the Constitution. They accomplished this by what is known as revolution within the form. Historically you saw this with the Roman Empire. In fact, had you asked a first or second century Roman if they lived in an Empire or Republic, they would have responded Republic. After all even though they had an emperor, the Senate still sat, but had no real power. Likewise today, we still have the legislature and judiciary, but their power is the easily circumvented by the president. To give you two examples, the State of the Union address sets legislative priorities for Congress and administrative law courts determined court verdicts rather than the judiciary. Administrative law courts are administered by the president.
So it's not just in regard to guns that our ideas have changed about the Constitution, the entire document isn't worth the paper it's written on because we've moved so far away from the philosophy behind the Constitution. Until we start thinking in those terms again, things will continue on the track they are on.
The courts seem to at least pay homage to idea of the constitution, and they are the ones who rule on cases on gun ownership. I for one, would rather have the Bill of Rights be a bit more specific.
We got lucky with this court, the court is pretty much given up any sort of independent evaluation of the presidency after FDR took office. As for the Bill of Rights being more specific, it wouldn't need to be if we actually taught American history, rather than American mythology. What the founders meant is out there for anybody to find, the Federalist papers, the anti-Federalist papers, personal writings and letters. Anybody who claims a loose interpretation of the Constitution makes an argument no different than that of Hamilton. Even if the Second Amendment were to be rewritten, you would still have efforts either overturn it or invalidate it. The only thing that keeps us free dessert guns, once those get taken away what other recourse do we have. What amazes me is how people can believe that the politicians are out to protect us when they're busy trying to strip us of our protections.
I agree,in large part; but I still think we need to work on the bulwark.
Didn't Thomas Jefferson say that we should grab our muskets and go down to DC every few years and chase the rascals out?
Now adays we have high powered rifles tat could decapitate a human
Now adays we have high powered rifles tat could decapitate a human
someonewhoknows says:
4 months ago
You may be right,although we have to think in terms of the time it was written.I'm sure almost everyone had a firearm in the 13 original colonies for hunting as well as for personal protection.The part about a well regulated militia pertains to a group of individuals who were trained to work together for mutual protection rather than a ragtag bunch of men who were undiciplined.In fact we call it the national guard.Each state has their own ,but as I recall the military co-opted the national guard into the military ,so I don't know if we still have a national guard or not I'll have to check the web out on that.I know that the UnitedStates military used to provide a rifle and ammo for average citizens to train with.But I think it was stopped by some congressmen when they found out about it in the
1990's .
When you consider how little respect president Bush had for the Constitution by calling it just a "piece of paper" .That sounds like a five year old ,who doesn't know any better.I can see why most of the military except for the navy wouldn't take orders from him.
I have less respect for the supreme court ,justice Thomas allowed Monsanto to patent genetically modified foods and charge farmers with growing their modified seed even if it blows into their land.This was big news in the 1990's when Clinton was president.Don't get me started on him.